Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windoews iintegration for DCRAW available

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 12:23:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I've been using the DCRAW software for raw conversion of my D60 dSLR
images for over a half a year now. DCRAW provides absolutely the
highest quality RAW conversion but is somewhat difficult to use since
it is a DOS program.

There are some Windows front-ends available for the DCRAW but none of
them seem to be perfect in a way or another so I wrote a batch file to
integrate the DCRAW firmly to the windows workflow.

The DCRAW_C batch provides the following functionalities:

1) RAW conversion can be performed directly from many image viewers
that support raw image viewing, like the Irfanview or Picaca2 etc and
the created PSD images automatically open into Photoshop.

2) Batch conversion of a folder (directory) full of RAW images is
easily performed from the Windows Explorer.

The DCRAW_C and simple setup instruction are available at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 5:44:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Timo Autiokari" <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in message
news:6lr221h9ctql13gr0si96nlj9il687dciu@4ax.com...
> Hi,
>
> I've been using the DCRAW software for raw conversion of my D60 dSLR
> images for over a half a year now. DCRAW provides absolutely the
> highest quality RAW conversion but is somewhat difficult to use
> since
> it is a DOS program.

Timo, thanks for your contribution and webpage write-up.
Unfortunately I have to disagree about DCRAW's conversion being of the
highest quality. The first example on your webpage
(http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/canon-dcraw.jp...) does show a
much higher level of pixel detail/contrast due to the VNG method of
demosaicing, but it also shows multicolored pixels instead of
anti-aliased edge transitions. That is not due to the workflow, but
stems from DCRAW, I've seen it ever since I tried DCRAW several years
ago.

Many Raw converter products are somehow inspired by Dave Coffin's
work, but they differ in the amount of postprocessing of the Bayer CFA
reconstruction. What is needed IMHO is a better postprocessing of the
above mentioned artifacts. It is also too clearly visible on the
powerlines and the roof edges of the large
<http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/CRW_1992-d.jpg...; example at
the bottom of your webpage. One could argue whether it is visible in
print, or in a down-sampled image for web publishing, but it is not
trivial to reduce its negative effects on resampling.

I know you like to tweak captured image data to extract the most
information possible from it (I do to). It would therefore be
interesting if you could compare the conversion quality of "Rawshooter
Essentials 2005" (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) to the DCRAW
conversion.
If your hardware doesn't allow it, I'd be willing to do the conversion
of the CRW_1992-d for you if you like. The RSE-2005 also employs an
improved method of tonemapping for increased dynamic range, I know
you're interested in that as well. Your image of the house is well
exposed, but output dynamic range limited, so it would be a good test.

Bart
Anonymous
February 27, 2005 8:20:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "Timo Autiokari" <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in message
> news:6lr221h9ctql13gr0si96nlj9il687dciu@4ax.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been using the DCRAW software for raw conversion of my D60
dSLR
> > images for over a half a year now. DCRAW provides absolutely the
> > highest quality RAW conversion but is somewhat difficult to use
> > since
> > it is a DOS program.
>
> Timo, thanks for your contribution and webpage write-up.
> Unfortunately I have to disagree about DCRAW's conversion being of
the
> highest quality. The first example on your webpage
> (http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/canon-dcraw.jp...) does show
a
> much higher level of pixel detail/contrast due to the VNG method of
> demosaicing, but it also shows multicolored pixels instead of
> anti-aliased edge transitions. That is not due to the workflow, but
> stems from DCRAW, I've seen it ever since I tried DCRAW several years

> ago.
>
> Many Raw converter products are somehow inspired by Dave Coffin's
> work, but they differ in the amount of postprocessing of the Bayer
CFA
> reconstruction. What is needed IMHO is a better postprocessing of the

> above mentioned artifacts. It is also too clearly visible on the
> powerlines and the roof edges of the large
> <http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/CRW_1992-d.jpg...; example at
> the bottom of your webpage. One could argue whether it is visible in
> print, or in a down-sampled image for web publishing, but it is not
> trivial to reduce its negative effects on resampling.
>
> I know you like to tweak captured image data to extract the most
> information possible from it (I do to). It would therefore be
> interesting if you could compare the conversion quality of
"Rawshooter
> Essentials 2005" (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) to the DCRAW
> conversion.
> If your hardware doesn't allow it, I'd be willing to do the
conversion
> of the CRW_1992-d for you if you like. The RSE-2005 also employs an
> improved method of tonemapping for increased dynamic range, I know
> you're interested in that as well. Your image of the house is well
> exposed, but output dynamic range limited, so it would be a good
test.
>
> Bart

Bart,

I use dcraw myself and have noticed the aliasing artifacts you mention.
Do have pointers to postprocessing algorithms that might help with the
problem?

Regards,
Tripurari
February 27, 2005 9:42:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Timo Autiokari wrote:
....
>
> 2) Batch conversion of a folder (directory) full of RAW images is
> easily performed from the Windows Explorer.
>
> The DCRAW_C and simple setup instruction are available at
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm


Hi I tried this setup in WinXP Pro without luck. I was able to get the
BAT file to run by copying a raw file to the c:/dcraw directory and
navigating there at the command line but the right-click open with
option just pops up a DOS window quicker than I can read & it dissapears.

These are my settings with paths copied direct from the explorer window:
set RAWext=NEF
set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
set DCRAWdir=c:\dcraw\
set PSpath=C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop CS\Photoshop.exe

Also, it creates a .ppm file which I've never heard of but Irfanview
will open and save to tiff.

Also, do you know how to do a plain linear conversion? I can look it up
but maybe you know quickly what the command options do?

-v -b 4 -3


I needed these pages to download the three files:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm (DCRAW_C.BAT)
http://www.insflug.org/raw/ (dcraw.exe)
http://shareware.pcmag.com/welcome.php?SiteID=pcmag (STRINGS.COM only)

Put them in c:\dcraw, edit the 'set' lines above to match and simply
right-click open with and browse to c:\dcraw\DCRAW_C.BAT

I did also put a shortcut in the send-to folder but your procedure for
setting the close on exit didn't work though I don't think that was my
problem.

Thanks for any clues.
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 3:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Paul,

paul wrote:
> I tried this setup in WinXP Pro without luck.

On winXP and win200x you need to give access rights (read, write,
execute and delete) to the DCRAW_C.BAT according to the following: It
reads the RAW files from where ever they are located and writes the
resulting PSDs to that same directory, it creates temporary BAT files
to run the DCRAW into the directory where the DCRAW_C is located (the
main DCRAW directory) and then deletes those temporary BAT files after
they have been executed. In case you use the create duplicate option it
will in addition write a copy of the raw file to the directory where
the original raw file is, then saves the converted duplicate PSD to
that directory and then deletes the duplicate RAW file. It is easiest
to just log in as the administrator and allow full access rights for
DCRAW_C for all users. In addition you need to give at least execute
and read rights for the strings.com.

>set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
> Also, it creates a .ppm file which I've never heard
> of but Irfanview will open and save to tiff.

With the above commandline parameters it will create a PSD.

> Also, do you know how to do a plain linear conversion?

The above commandline parameters inded do create a pure linear
conversion into PSD file.

I can look it up but maybe you know quickly what the command options
do?
> -v -b 4 -3

-v == verbose (ouputs more progress information)
-b 4 == the scaling amount, 4 is good for D60 images
-3 == ouputs PSD file instead the PPM

> I needed these pages to download the three files:
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm (DCRAW_C.BAT)
> http://www.insflug.org/raw/ (dcraw.exe)
> http://shareware.pcmag.com/welcome.php?SiteID=pcmag (STRINGS.COM
only)

Yes, correct (as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)

I believe the problems you encoutered are due to the security settings.

Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 4:44:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Bart,

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> Timo, thanks for your contribution and webpage write-up.

Just to clarify, my page about the DCRAW has been there for a long
time, I just added the DCRAW_C download with the setup instructions to
that.

> Unfortunately I have to disagree about DCRAW's conversion being
> of the highest quality. The first example on your webpage
>(http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/canon-dcraw.jp...)
>does show a much higher level of pixel detail/contrast due to the VNG
>method of demosaicing, but it also shows multicolored pixels instead
of
>anti-aliased edge transitions. That is not due to the workflow, but
>stems from DCRAW, I've seen it ever since I tried DCRAW several years
>ago.

Please do note that the the comparisons have the same (and rather
healthy) amount of USM over them.

Sure, DCRAW conversion is more sharp so it will show both the image
detail and the camera noise better. Noise, when it is present at
disturbing amount, can be magaged to some extent in the post-processing
but it is absolutely impossible to recover image detail from a poor
(soft) converision.

> Many Raw converter products are somehow inspired by Dave Coffin's
> work, but they differ in the amount of postprocessing of the Bayer
CFA
> reconstruction. What is needed IMHO is a better postprocessing of the

> above mentioned artifacts.

Yes, I do agree, but the VNG intrepolation in fact already is a (far)
better postprocessing method than what the rest of the converters do,
they simply intrerpolate using a very large kernel size (large spatial
pixel area) and this in plain English is the same as that they just
apply a hefty amount of gaussian blur over the image.

>It is also too clearly visible on the powerlines and the roof edges of

>the large > <http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/CRW_1992-d.jpg...;
>example at the bottom of your webpage. One could argue whether it is
>visible in print, or in a down-sampled image for web publishing, but
it
>is not trivial to reduce its negative effects on resampling.

It so happens that you are commenting the worst image on that page, it
was underexposed and (in a mistake) shot at higher ISO. Plus that it
also has very strong post-processing (shadow boost and USM) over it.

But yes, DCRAW does give sharp conversion and when there is noise it
will be also a little more visible. Personally I choose a little more
noisy image instead of one that looks like painted or plastic,
everytime.

> I know you like to tweak captured image data to extract the most
> information possible from it (I do to). It would therefore be
> interesting if you could compare the conversion quality of
"Rawshooter
> Essentials 2005" (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) to the DCRAW
> conversion.
> If your hardware doesn't allow it, I'd be willing to do the
conversion
> of the CRW_1992-d for you if you like. The RSE-2005 also employs an
> improved method of tonemapping for increased dynamic range, I know
> you're interested in that as well. Your image of the house is well
> exposed, but output dynamic range limited, so it would be a good
test.

Such comparison will be very interesting! I do not want to provide
that particular raw shot since it has those problems that I explain
above. Instead I will add to the page yet another example (a well
exposed 100ASA shot) and I will include the raw file itself for
download. I can host on my site the conversions that you (or anybody
else interested) want to provide. I have the Win98se so I'm not able to
run the pixmantec tool (they specify that it is only compatible with
WinXP), also for the same reason I'm not able to run the Adobe dingy
conversion.

Timo Autiokari
February 28, 2005 10:29:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> paul wrote:
>
>>I tried this setup in WinXP Pro without luck.
>
>
> On winXP and win200x you need to give access rights (read, write,
> execute and delete) to the DCRAW_C.BAT according to the following: It
> reads the RAW files from where ever they are located and writes the
> resulting PSDs to that same directory, it creates temporary BAT files
> to run the DCRAW into the directory where the DCRAW_C is located (the
> main DCRAW directory) and then deletes those temporary BAT files after
> they have been executed. In case you use the create duplicate option it
> will in addition write a copy of the raw file to the directory where
> the original raw file is, then saves the converted duplicate PSD to
> that directory and then deletes the duplicate RAW file. It is easiest
> to just log in as the administrator and allow full access rights for
> DCRAW_C for all users. In addition you need to give at least execute
> and read rights for the strings.com.


I am logged in as administrator.


>
>
>>set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
>>Also, it creates a .ppm file which I've never heard
>>of but Irfanview will open and save to tiff.
>
>
> With the above commandline parameters it will create a PSD.


Ah, maybe I just used "dcraw test.nef" at the command line instead of
the batch.

Yes I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
batch file.
goto was unexpected at this time.

There was the option in the file properties of the bat file to process
with win95 etc compatibility. I tried win98 through 200 without luck.

>
>
>>Also, do you know how to do a plain linear conversion?
>
>
> The above commandline parameters inded do create a pure linear
> conversion into PSD file.


I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
high contrast images.


>
> I can look it up but maybe you know quickly what the command options
> do?
>
>>-v -b 4 -3
>
>
> -v == verbose (ouputs more progress information)
> -b 4 == the scaling amount, 4 is good for D60 images
> -3 == ouputs PSD file instead the PPM
>
>
>>I needed these pages to download the three files:
>>http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm (DCRAW_C.BAT)
>>http://www.insflug.org/raw/ (dcraw.exe)
>>http://shareware.pcmag.com/welcome.php?SiteID=pcmag (STRINGS.COM
>
> only)
>
> Yes, correct (as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)


Ah ha, I has version 1. The link on your page was not responding at the
time. Gotta go now, I'll try that. Thanks.


>
> I believe the problems you encoutered are due to the security settings.
>
> Timo Autiokari
>
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 6:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
>
> I know you like to tweak captured image data to extract the most
> information possible from it (I do to). It would therefore be
> interesting if you could compare the conversion quality of "Rawshooter
> Essentials 2005" (http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html) to the DCRAW
> conversion.
> If your hardware doesn't allow it, I'd be willing to do the conversion
> of the CRW_1992-d for you if you like. The RSE-2005 also employs an
> improved method of tonemapping for increased dynamic range, I know
> you're interested in that as well. Your image of the house is well
> exposed, but output dynamic range limited, so it would be a good test.
>
> Bart

Interesting suggestion Bart, that pixmantec could be of use to most
people. I have Corel products I often use in preference to Photoshop. I
also use Windows 2000 in preference to Windows XP. Alas, the version of
Rawshooter essencials offered by Corel only works with Windows XP. Pity
because it seems to offer something. I guess those of us who refuse to
use XP because of it's invasive nature will never know. Fancy putting
out a program which won't work under Win 2K? When the time to move on
from 2k eventually comes, it will not be upwards in the Microsoft group.

JD
--
EOS my GOD,
Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light.
Take away my grain, give me colour and you
shall have given me the edge!
February 28, 2005 6:06:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deciple of EOS wrote:

> I guess those of us who refuse to
> use XP because of it's invasive nature will never know. Fancy putting
> out a program which won't work under Win 2K? When the time to move on
> from 2k eventually comes, it will not be upwards in the Microsoft group.
>


My thoughts exactly.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 11:10:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<tsingh@cnds.jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:1109553626.385427.173660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> I use dcraw myself and have noticed the aliasing artifacts you
> mention. Do have pointers to postprocessing algorithms that
> might help with the problem?

It is best handled at conversion time itself, so it should be part of
the converter software. Postprocessing the converted (and perhaps even
Gamma adjusted) result will only lose information.
I don't have specific pointers, although
http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/crimmins.htm#1 may provide a
sense of direction.

I'd personally prefer some aproach that is based on Standard Deviation
rather than absolute difference. Standard deviation would come closer
in appearance to Photon shot noise, which is a driving force (and
physical limitation) in high signal to noise digital imaging.

Bart
Anonymous
February 28, 2005 11:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:29:11 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>Yes I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
>not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
>batch file. goto was unexpected at this time.

Hmmm, BATCHCONVERT is a label inside the cdraw_c.bat. It works
perfectly in Win98se, no need to type anything, I can start the
conversion from Irfanview or fPicasa2 or even from Windows Explorer.

>I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
>to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
>unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
>high contrast images.

Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/techniques/linear_raw/index....

>> Yes, correct (as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)
>
>Ah ha, I has version 1. The link on your page was
>not responding at the time.

Sure needs the strings v2.5, I tried the d/l link just now and it is
OK. I will look at the license of the freeware strings utility, it
could be possible for me to put it available from my site.

Timo Autiokari
February 28, 2005 11:42:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Timo Autiokari wrote:
> paul wrote:
>
>>I just typed "dcraw_c.bat" and it complained that BATCHCONVERT is
>>not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
>>batch file. goto was unexpected at this time.
>
> Hmmm, BATCHCONVERT is a label inside the cdraw_c.bat. It works
> perfectly in Win98se,

I did try setting the compatibility mode from winxp to win98 without any
change.

> no need to type anything, I can start the
> conversion from Irfanview or fPicasa2 or even from Windows Explorer.


I tried again at a DOS command line in winxp with:
"dcraw_c.bat mypicture.nef"

and got only the last part of the error:
"goto was unexpected at this time"

I don't know if it works that way, previously I had simply called the
..bat file without specifying a raw file.



I also tried again by right-clicking a raw file & selecting Open-With
browsing to dcraw_c.bat & grabbed a screen shot before it blinked away.
There are no error messages, it simply shows the credits & closes. I've
had trouble with other bat files blinking away like that before. I don't
know much about DOS batch.


>>I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you have
>>to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format. It's an
>>unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic range with
>>high contrast images.
>
> Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
> you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/techniques/linear_raw/index....


Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hybrid-conv...
I couldn't find any documentation for dcraw command options other than a
few FAQ's.

I shoot in Adobe RGB but maybe that isn't being read and isn't
happening, you say it should be Linear & it looks like I need a profile
for photoshop to read that. I use a Nikon D70, not the D60 that you
show. Still I think we are talking about different types of "linear
conversion".



>>>(as long as the strings.com is version 2.5)


Your link worked just now & I ran the above tests with the new version.
Overseas sites sometimes don't connect from california I've noticed it's
not unusual, nobody's fault. I appreciate your efforts.
March 1, 2005 12:18:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Timo Autiokari wrote:
>
>>> I'm talking about where it comes out looking almost black then you
>>> have to apply adjustments to recover. It needs to be 16 bit format.
>>> It's an unusual technique for creating B&W images with better dynamic
>>> range with high contrast images.
>>
>>
>> Linear image data does NOT come out as "almost black", it just that
>> you are not viewing them correctly, please see more at
>> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/techniques/linear_raw/index....
>
>
>
> Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hybrid-conv...
> I couldn't find any documentation for dcraw command options other than a
> few FAQ's.
>
> I shoot in Adobe RGB but maybe that isn't being read and isn't
> happening, you say it should be Linear & it looks like I need a profile
> for photoshop to read that. I use a Nikon D70, not the D60 that you
> show. Still I think we are talking about different types of "linear
> conversion".



I played some more at the command prompt with plain dcraw. Simply type
dcraw to get a list of the options Doh!

Your settings: set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3

-b 4 increases brightness to counteract the dark look of a linear
conversion that I mentioned. If I don't use this option, I can adjust
the levels in photoshop and get a more robust looking, less clipped
histogram than the Adobe RAW plugin. Also the less agressive
antialiasing filter in dcraw gives a sharper but noisier image which has
advantages. I did play with the hybrid approach as well since I have no
profile for the linear conversion the dcraw colors came out odd as well
as the color bayer artifacts mentioned above.

One strange thing is the dcraw conversion frames the image up about 20
pixels (portrait shot) so it doesn't match the adobe version. Very very odd!
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:19:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Timo Autiokari" <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in message
news:7ap6215mo0aksmjsevk8hblv573keg5vjp@4ax.com...
> Hi Bart,
>
> I've uploaded a crw for the comparison:
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

Okay. Before I give you the links to my conversion results, allow me
to make a introductory comment about the file. This file should be
almost perfect for DCRAW, because there is almost nothing in the file
that shows focused straight edges. The multicolored high contrast
edges are the Achilles heel of DCRAW.

However, even in this file the rainbow like colors are present in the
ring edges of the bridle. The good news is that the colored artifacts
don't have to show as prominently if they were worsened by sharpening.
Just apply the sharpening on a duplicate layer and use a Luminosity
blending mode.

Now for the results, I've prepared the following:
1. From Rawshooter essentials,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Canon-RSE.jpg .
The left window is unsharpened from RSE-2005, and the right window is
the same file but with USM 170 / 0.3 / 0 . I tried to achieve a
similar amount of sharpening as with your DCRAW examples.
2. From Adobe Camera Raw,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Canon-ACR.jpg .
The left window is unsharpened from Adobe Camera Raw, and the right
window is the same file but with USM 500 / 0.3 / 0 . Again, I tried to
achieve a similar amount of sharpening as with your DCRAW examples.

Different sharpening methods will also produce different looking
results.

To me, the ACR example shows a very slight advantage to both others,
due to less posterized shadows than DCRAW (but that posterization has
probably more to do with the profile you used), and the slightly
better shadow definition than RSE. Do note that in trying to match the
output in color and tonality of the DCRAW file, things may have been
lost. Straight conversion with these converters produces slightly
different output, at which point it becomes a matter of taste and it
makes a direct comparison more difficult. Different files/subjects
will also produce different results.

Nevertheless, DCRAW is a fine converter if it weren't for the
multicolored artifacts on high contrast edges, and spotty thin lines.
It would seem useful to search for a solution to solve that. A simple
method for profiling/color matching would be welcome as well.
The free "Rawshooter essentials 2005" is a very good tool, if the
current issues with other platforms than P4/Win XP are solved. The
workflow is well thought through, and the stand alone application
allows good sharp output, with very little color fringing (it seems to
suppress chromatic aberration to a certain extent). A little more
control in a payware version would be appreciated. It is also possible
to produce aliasing artifacts with extremely fine detail, it is
usually low in color moiré but visible as luminance moiré.
Adobe Camera Raw is an all purpose converter and offers lots of
control in a color-managed environment. It produces quality output,
but it requires Photoshop CS for a full capability version of the Raw
converter.

Bart
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 12:29:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Paul,

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:18:31 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>Your settings: set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
>-b 4 increases brightness to counteract the dark look of a linear
>conversion that I mentioned.

Aha, I did not understand that it was _this_ issue. I scale the 12-bit
output of my D60 up using DCRAW because there will be less
quantization (or there are more different RGB values) than how
Photoshop Levels does it.

>since I have no profile for the linear conversion the dcraw colors
>came out odd as well as the color bayer artifacts mentioned above.

Yes, it is best to have profile(s). My understanding is that the
default color space that DCRAW does the linear conversion to is
Widegamut, D65 gamma 1.0 profile. This is the same as my AIMRGBpro
profile, available at:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/download/aim_profiles.zip
So daylight/sunlight shots should appear rather nicely if you just
Assign the AIMRGBpro profile.

>One strange thing is the dcraw conversion frames the image up about 20
>pixels (portrait shot) so it doesn't match the adobe version. Very very odd!

It is so with D60 conversion also, but just a few pixels, larger in
both x and y dimensions. I believe that what DCRAW outputs is the real
sensor size.

I'm sorry I am not able to help you with the batch at this time, as
soon as I have the possibility to test it on an XP machine I will take
a good look into this. But in addition of being logged as an
administrator I believe you still need to give the proper rights for
the dcraw_c.

Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:40:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Bart,

Thank you! Is it OK to put all the results side by side on the dcraw
page at my site?

> This file should be almost perfect for DCRAW, because there is almost
nothing in
> the file hat shows focused straight edges. The multicolored high
contrast edges
> are the Achilles heel of DCRAW.

I agree that the edges in DCRAW conversion are not as soft as they are
from what ever other converter but really these artifacts that you
refer to do not show on the CRT at 100% zoom (at actual pixels size). A
CRT has about 100ppi so this means a printed image e.g. from my D60
(6MP) at the size of 50cm by 75cm (20 inch by 30 inch). Sure, if I need
to resample up from that then there will be a need to address to this
issue but there are several things that can be done. Do you truly see
rainbow like colors at the edges of those rings? At what magnification?
Also, where exactly do you see posterized shadows in my DCRAW
version??? I can not see any.

>From these the DCRAW conversion is clearly the best (most sharp), ACR
is the second best but definitely more soft. The RSE conversion seems
to have also other problems in addition to the softness (e.g. blotchy
skin on the neck). The Canon software clearly is the worst (extremely
soft), one has to remember that it does not apply any sharpening in
linear the conversion mode so for a fair comparison one actually should
sharpen them much more ...but that does not help at all, just gives
more sharpening artefacts.

The color-managment is another kind of issue, I prefer DCRAW because
with it I have full control over that. I have currently 12 profiles for
my D60 (for different illumination situations) but the common 4 or 5
that there are in commercial/bundled converters is quite enough
normally. It is not a very big task at all to create these camera
profiles but the commercial products sure are easier to take into use
in regars to color-management, certainly not equally accurate, but more
easy. And of course the Windows GUI is an issue but the batch file now
makes things very very easy. On the other hand DCRAW workflow (once the
initial setup is ready) is very simple, straightforward and clear /
easily understandable, you get the raw image data into Photoshop,
engage the color-management and then finalize the image fully there
using those familar editing operations ...and there are quite many
operations to choose from in Photoshop. For me these "full-featured"
converters are like blackboxes ...and Photoshop acts as just as a mere
"SaveAs engine" or a JPEG converter behind them.

One thing btw should be very clear now: The conversion algorithm have a
paramount effect on image quality. E.g. one can find many Web pages
that focus on the lens quality, inspecting differences between the
lenses that are just a tiny fraction of that softness that a poor
conversion algorithm produce. Really there is no benefit in buying an
extremely expensive "sharp" lens in case one is using a "soft"
converison tool.

Timo Autiokari
March 2, 2005 11:29:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Timo Autiokari wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:18:31 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>>Your settings: set DCRAWcmd=-v -b 4 -3
>>-b 4 increases brightness to counteract the dark look of a linear
>>conversion that I mentioned.
>
>
> Aha, I did not understand that it was _this_ issue. I scale the 12-bit
> output of my D60 up using DCRAW because there will be less
> quantization (or there are more different RGB values) than how
> Photoshop Levels does it.


Sorry I was confused again. The only version that looks close to correct
without major levels and curves adjustments is the vanilla .ppm
conversion using simply DCRAW TEST.NEF and getting irfanview to save as
a tif. Then the colors are way off. I did use the wide gamut profile
with the command line in your batch and still it needs major adjustment
to brighten up. Just like the dark images in the other page I mentioned.


>
>
>>since I have no profile for the linear conversion the dcraw colors
>>came out odd as well as the color bayer artifacts mentioned above.
>
>
> Yes, it is best to have profile(s). My understanding is that the
> default color space that DCRAW does the linear conversion to is
> Widegamut, D65 gamma 1.0 profile. This is the same as my AIMRGBpro
> profile, available at:
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/download/aim_profiles.zip
> So daylight/sunlight shots should appear rather nicely if you just
> Assign the AIMRGBpro profile.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 9:53:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in message
news:1109749257.851859.210760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Bart,
>
> Thank you! Is it OK to put all the results side by side on the
> dcraw page at my site?

Sure, no problem. You may want to convert my samples (sRGB) to the
same colorspace you used for the other samples.

Do remember that they are typical results, but after trying to match
the DCRAW original. Straight conversions may come out better (but with
different tonality and color), depending on the original Raw data
file, and the best post-processing one may have available. Especially
for sharpening there can be significant differences, depending on the
method used.

SNIP
> Do you truly see rainbow like colors at the edges of those
> rings? At what magnification?

Yes, at 50-60 cm distance on a calibrated "19 inch" CRT set at
1024x768 px. I always judge these effects at 100% zoom. Maybe my eyes
are too good? Again, that's on screen, in print it may be harder to
see unless enlarged.

> Also, where exactly do you see posterized shadows in my
> DCRAW version??? I can not see any.

Inside the horse's ear, lower part of his/her eye and nostril. That
added to the impression of sharpness. That can also be created with
Adobe's ACR if the Shadows slider is reduced too much, it creates a
somewhat noise like appearance.

SNIP
> The Canon software clearly is the worst (extremely soft), one
> has to remember that it does not apply any sharpening in
> linear the conversion mode so for a fair comparison one
> actually should sharpen them much more ...but that does not
> help at all, just gives more sharpening artefacts.

That's correct, in linear mode the Canon FVU converter is soft, but it
does allow resampling with less risk of resampling artifacts. When you
do add sharpening to a gamma adjusted conversion, the sharpening is
quite effective, although it produces a bit of a halo with the higher
settings. At the other end of the spectrum is the RSE-2005 which has
to be reduced in default sharpening and it can lead to luminance
aliasing (perhaps causing the horse's skin blotchiness), the newer
Canon dSLRs come with Digital Photo Pro (DPP) which is yet again a bit
different.

SNIP
> One thing btw should be very clear now: The conversion
> algorithm have a paramount effect on image quality.

Yes, that's why I've tried several, and I'm also going to add Bibble
Pro to that list as soon as version 4.2 is released (4.1 has a few
issues with things that are important to me, like e.g. highlight
recovery).

> E.g. one can find many Web pages that focus on the lens
> quality, inspecting differences between the lenses that are
> just a tiny fraction of that softness that a poor conversion
> algorithm produce.

True, but one should (!) minimize the number of variables, and if
possible use a single Raw converter for all conversions. From the
converters I used on the same Raw file, the non-sharpened conversion
from the Canon FVU was the softest, and the RSE-2005 was the sharpest.
Subsequent sharpening, which is an art in itself, will determine the
look of the output.

> Really there is no benefit in buying an extremely expensive
> "sharp" lens in case one is using a "soft" converison tool.

That may depend a bit on the final use, if resampling is anticipated
then the conversion shouldn't be *too* sharp because it will produce
aliasing artifacts (of course one should pre-blur with an appropriate
low-pass filter but not all software does that automatically).
Very sharp lenses may also create more aliasing artifacts in the
original Raw data file if the sensor has a mild AA-filter (e.g. Nikon
D70).

Bart
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 10:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:29:46 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>The only version that looks close to correct without major levels
>and curves adjustments is the vanilla .ppm conversion using
>simply DCRAW TEST.NEF and getting irfanview to save as
>a tif. Then the colors are way off.

Please do:

1) dcraw -v -b 4 -3 test.nef (using the CRAW itself)
2) Open the resulting test.psd into Photoshop
3) In Photoshop do Image/Mode/AssignProfile and choose the AIMRGBpro
profile

Now, without any tweaking, the test.psd does appear very nicely.

Note that first you need to put the AIMRGBpro.icm profile to the
profiles directory in your machine so that Photoshop can find it, the
profile directories are:
in Win98, Win98SE, WinMe --> C:\Windows\System\Color
in Win XP --> C:\Windows\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color
in Windows NT, Win 2000 --> C:\WinNT\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color

>I did use the wide gamut profile with the command line in your
>batch and still it needs major adjustment to brighten up. Just
>like the dark images in the other page I mentioned.

My batch is not for command-line tasks (it is for _avoiding_ command
the line interface) and also does not know what to do with an ICC
profile.

Timo Autiokari
March 2, 2005 10:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Timo Autiokari wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 08:29:46 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The only version that looks close to correct without major levels
>>and curves adjustments is the vanilla .ppm conversion using
>>simply DCRAW TEST.NEF and getting irfanview to save as
>>a tif. Then the colors are way off.
>
>
> Please do:
>
> 1) dcraw -v -b 4 -3 test.nef (using the CRAW itself)
> 2) Open the resulting test.psd into Photoshop
> 3) In Photoshop do Image/Mode/AssignProfile and choose the AIMRGBpro
> profile
>
> Now, without any tweaking, the test.psd does appear very nicely.


That's what I did and it came out dark. It's possible to adjust but
requires additional steps. I loaded the profile manually in photoshop so
it could find that. Maybe my D70 requires different settings. It's OK,
I'm giving up now. Except for the less agressive bayer antialiasing, I
can get what I need with ACR. I don't think it does as much as I hoped
for expanding the range in high contrast conditions.


>
> Note that first you need to put the AIMRGBpro.icm profile to the
> profiles directory in your machine so that Photoshop can find it, the
> profile directories are:
> in Win98, Win98SE, WinMe --> C:\Windows\System\Color
> in Win XP --> C:\Windows\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color
> in Windows NT, Win 2000 --> C:\WinNT\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color
>
>
>>I did use the wide gamut profile with the command line in your
>>batch and still it needs major adjustment to brighten up. Just
>>like the dark images in the other page I mentioned.
>
>
> My batch is not for command-line tasks (it is for _avoiding_ command
> the line interface) and also does not know what to do with an ICC
> profile.
>
> Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:25:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Paul,

eh, I found the bug why dcraw_c did not run with other than CRW files,
I'm very sorry about the trouble. Uploaded the v 1.3
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

Best to use from Irfanview (using the Open With an External Viewer
command) or Picasa2 (using the Open File command), please follow the
setup instruction on the above page. But you can of course use the
command line also like "dcraw_c full-path-to-the-raw-file". Must be
full path, including the drive letter even if you have copied the raw
file into the dcraw directory.

-there is no need to use the DOS command line at all.
-there is no need to copy raw files to any other locations.
-in case of conversion of a single raw file the created PSD file is
stored to the same directory where the original raw file is located
and is open to Photoshop automatically. In case the corresponding PSD
file exists, choice is given to open existing, to make a duplicate
(with another name), to re-convert or just quit. In case of
re-conversions it will ask for the confirmation twice.
-in case of batch conversion of a directory full of raw files the
created PSD files are simply saved to that directory. Does not
overwrite existing PSD files (convert only those that do not have the
corresponding PSD in that directory).

Timo Autiokari
March 2, 2005 11:25:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Timo Autiokari wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> eh, I found the bug why dcraw_c did not run with other than CRW files,
> I'm very sorry about the trouble. Uploaded the v 1.3
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm


Damn it man, I'm doomed <g>.

I get an error about photoshop 8 (CS) being unable to run in this
operating system (presumably from the bat file). It did run most of the
conversion up to there. Hmm actually I see now it choked on a space in
my path where the NEF resided as well.



>
> Best to use from Irfanview (using the Open With an External Viewer
> command) or Picasa2 (using the Open File command), please follow the
> setup instruction on the above page. But you can of course use the
> command line also like "dcraw_c full-path-to-the-raw-file". Must be
> full path, including the drive letter even if you have copied the raw
> file into the dcraw directory.
>
> -there is no need to use the DOS command line at all.
> -there is no need to copy raw files to any other locations.
> -in case of conversion of a single raw file the created PSD file is
> stored to the same directory where the original raw file is located
> and is open to Photoshop automatically. In case the corresponding PSD
> file exists, choice is given to open existing, to make a duplicate
> (with another name), to re-convert or just quit. In case of
> re-conversions it will ask for the confirmation twice.
> -in case of batch conversion of a directory full of raw files the
> created PSD files are simply saved to that directory. Does not
> overwrite existing PSD files (convert only those that do not have the
> corresponding PSD in that directory).
>
> Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:51:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>Timo Autiokari wrote:

>> Please do:
>> 1) dcraw -v -b 4 -3 test.nef (using the DCRAW itself)
>> 2) Open the resulting test.psd into Photoshop
>> 3) In Photoshop do Image/Mode/AssignProfile and choose the AIMRGBpro profile

>That's what I did and it came out dark.

If you did it exactly like above then it does *not* come out as "dark"
*provided* that Photoshop color-management is working correctly.

Example:

From this page:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...

you can download a D1 nef:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...

If you do the above mentioned DCRAW conversion (steps 1) and open
resulting the PSD image to Photoshop that happens to have AdobeRGB
profile as the RGB working-space profile in the Color-Management setup
(step 2) then it will look like this:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/wrong-color-management....

After you do the above step 3 it will look like this:
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/correct-color-managemen...

Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:11:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul,

I have been waiting for your comment to my below example about "dark"
appearance of linear DCRAW conversion, have you not seen my post?

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0200, Timo Autiokari
<timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote:

>Example:
>
>From this page:
>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...
>
>you can download a D1 nef:
>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...
>
>If you do the above mentioned DCRAW conversion (steps 1) and open
>resulting the PSD image to Photoshop that happens to have AdobeRGB
>profile as the RGB working-space profile in the Color-Management setup
>(step 2) then it will look like this:
>http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/wrong-color-management....
>
>After you do the above step 3 it will look like this:
>http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/correct-color-managemen...


Timo Autiokari
March 5, 2005 12:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

OK I tried again and now I see that I had not properly loaded that
profile. It needed to be copied over to
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Color\Profiles\
Simply navigating to it with Load doesn't make it stick in the list and
I chose the wrong "wide Gamut RGB' after that.

BTW it gives a significant border increase
3038x2012 vs 3008x2000
6 pixels added to the top & bottom, 15 pixels on both sides.

Here's a test:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
The curves I applied in the end may be causing some of the differences
so I included the unadjusted unsharpened versions too in the 100% crop
comparison.


Timo Autiokari wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I have been waiting for your comment to my below example about "dark"
> appearance of linear DCRAW conversion, have you not seen my post?
>
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:51:10 +0200, Timo Autiokari
> <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Example:
>>
>
>>From this page:
>
>>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...
>>
>>you can download a D1 nef:
>>http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/NEF...
>>
>>If you do the above mentioned DCRAW conversion (steps 1) and open
>>resulting the PSD image to Photoshop that happens to have AdobeRGB
>>profile as the RGB working-space profile in the Color-Management setup
>>(step 2) then it will look like this:
>>http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/wrong-color-management....
>>
>>After you do the above step 3 it will look like this:
>>http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/temp/correct-color-managemen...
>
>
>
> Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:12:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:e4qdnbiShrmGdLTfRVn-oA@speakeasy.net...
SNIP
> BTW it gives a significant border increase
> 3038x2012 vs 3008x2000
> 6 pixels added to the top & bottom, 15 pixels on both sides.

Yes it's a small bonus. Some of the converters do that, but it takes
the number of pixels for each dimension away from a multiple of 16.
That multiple is important for some types of JPEG compression that
work with blocks of 8 or 16 pixels.

Bart
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Paul,


On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:15:04 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>Here's a test:
><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;

Good test, and interesting photo too! Again shows the excellent
DCRAW conversion result.

About DCRAW_C.BAT not launching the PS CS on your computer:

1) I updated the DCRAW_C.BAT again, this could possibly help, it does
not create a temporary bat file to run the actual converison (there is
a small but important change to the setup instructions due to this)
and works properly with all kind of raw files that DCRAW supports.
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm

2) it could be due to the emulation mode you have selected for the DOS
box, if you remove the emulation I believe it could now work (I have
no access to PC CS so I have not yet had the ability to test this).

BR,
Timo
March 6, 2005 3:32:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.graphics.photoshop,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I could not tell what changed in the setup procedure. I did try turning
off compatibility mode.

If I open a single file with dcraw_c.bat right-click I get the same
cannot run photoshop under this operating system error.

If I run it at the command line on a raw file in the dcraw folder I get
first:

DCRAW IS CONVERTING TO PHOTOSHOP
-----------------
\.: No such file or directory (ENOENT)


Then a photoshop pop up error message after clicking OK to the New File
Dialogue box:
Photoshop:
Could not complete your request due to a program error.

The send-to option blinks away quicker than I can read.


Timo Autiokari wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
>
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 09:15:04 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>>Here's a test:
>><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay...;
>
>
> Good test, and interesting photo too! Again shows the excellent
> DCRAW conversion result.
>
> About DCRAW_C.BAT not launching the PS CS on your computer:
>
> 1) I updated the DCRAW_C.BAT again, this could possibly help, it does
> not create a temporary bat file to run the actual converison (there is
> a small but important change to the setup instructions due to this)
> and works properly with all kind of raw files that DCRAW supports.
> http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/index.htm
>
> 2) it could be due to the emulation mode you have selected for the DOS
> box, if you remove the emulation I believe it could now work (I have
> no access to PC CS so I have not yet had the ability to test this).
>
> BR,
> Timo
!